Waterpik® Water Flosser: Twice as Effective as String Floss for Reducing Gingival Bleeding

The Effect of Interdental Cleaning Devices on Plaque Biofilm and Gingival Bleeding
Rosema NAM et al. The effect of different interdental cleaning devices on gingival bleeding. J Int Acad Periodontol 2011; 13(1):2-10.


Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 14 Day Results

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 14 Day Results

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 30 Day Results

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 30 Day Results

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of a manual toothbrush plus a Waterpik® Water Flosser versus a manual toothbrush plus traditional floss, to reduce gingival bleeding and plaque biofilm.

Methodology

One hundred four subjects participated in this 30-day, randomized, single blind study. Group A used a Waterpik® Water Flosser with the Classic Jet Tip plus a manual toothbrush, Group B used a Waterpik® Water Flosser with the Plaque Seeker® Tip plus a manual toothbrush and Group C used waxed string floss plus a manual toothbrush. Subjects brushed twice daily and used either the Water Flosser or floss once daily in the evening. Gingival bleeding and plaque biofilm were evaluated at day 14 and day 30.

Results

After 14 days, used in conjunction with manual toothbrushing, the Waterpik® Water Flosser with the Classic Jet Tip was twice as effective as traditional floss at reducing gingival bleeding. At 30 days, the relative improvement in gingival bleeding for the Water Flosser groups was even more dramatic. There were no significant differences between the Water Flosser Classic Jet Tip and the Plaque Seeker® Tip.

Conclusion

The Waterpik® Water Flosser is a more effective alternative to traditional dental floss for reducing gingival bleeding and improving oral health.


Waterpik® Water Flossers: 51% More Effective than String Floss for Reducing Gingivitis

Comparison of Irrigation to Floss as an Adjunct to Toothbrushing: Effect on Bleeding, Gingivitis, and Supragingival Plaque
Barnes CM, et al. J Clin Dent, 2005; 16(3): 71-77. Study conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, College of Dentistry, Lincoln, Nebraska.


Reduction of Gingival Inflammation – Lingual

Reduction of Gingival Inflammation – Lingual

Reduction of Gingival Inflammation – Facial

Reduction of Gingival Inflammation – Facial

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – Lingual

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – Lingual

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – Facial

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – Facial

Objective

To compare the plaque removal efficacy of the Waterpik® Water Flosser to string floss combined with a manual toothbrush.

Methodology

Seventy subjects participated in this randomized, single use, single blind, parallel clinical study. Subjects abstained from any oral hygiene for 23 - 25 hours prior to their appointment. Subjects were screened and assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik® Water Flosser plus a manual toothbrush, or waxed string floss plus a manual toothbrush. Instructions were provided for each product used. Each participant brushed for 2-minutes using the Bass method. Group 1 used the Water Flosser with 500 ml of warm water and group 2 used waxed string floss cleaning all areas between the teeth. Subjects were observed to make sure they covered all areas and followed instructions. Scores were recorded for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual regions for each subject using the Rustogi Modification Navy Plaque Index.

Results

The Waterpik® Water Flosser was 29% more effective than string floss for overall plaque removal, 29% for approximal surfaces, and 33% for marginal surfaces.

Conclusion

The Waterpik® Water Flosser is significantly more effective than string floss in removing plaque for all tooth surfaces.


Waterpik® Water Flosser: More Than 2X As Effective As String Floss for Implant Patients

The Effect of a Water Flosser with Plaque Seeker Tip® on Gingival Bleeding for Implant Patients
Magnuson B, et al. Comparison of the effect of two interdental cleaning devices around implants on the reduction of bleeding: A 30-day randomized clinical trial. Compend of Contin Ed in Dent 2013; 34(Special Issue 8):2-7. Study conducted at Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.


Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 14 Day Results

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 14 Day Results

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 30 Day Results

Reduction of Gingival Bleeding – 30 Day Results

Objective

To compare the efficacy of a Waterpik® Water Flosser to string floss for implant patients.

Methodology

Subjects were randomized into two groups; Group 1 used a manual toothbrush and a Waterpik® Water Flosser with the Plaque Seeker® Tip (WF) and Group 2 used a manual toothbrush and string floss (SF). There were 22 implants in each group and the primary outcome was the reduction in the incidence of bleeding on probing. Subjects brushed twice a day and used either the WF or SF once a day.

Results

There were no differences between the groups at baseline. At 30 days, 18 of the 22 (81.8%) implants in the WF group showed a significant reduction in BOP compared to 6 of the 18 (33.3%) from the floss group. The WF group experienced 145% better reduction in gingival bleeding around implants vs. the string floss group (p=0.0018).

Conclusion

The Waterpik® Water Flosser is significantly more effective than string floss for improving gingival health around implants and is safe to use.


The Waterpik® Water Flosser: Significantly More Effective than Sonicare® Air Floss Pro for Improving Gum Health

Efficacy of two interdental cleaning devices on clinical signs of inflammation: a four-week randomized controlled trial.
Goyal CR, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, Schuller R. J Clin Dent 2015; 26:55 – 60. Study conducted at All Sum Research Center, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.


Bleeding Reduction (4 weeks)

Bleeding Reduction - 4 weeks

Gingivitis Reduction (4 weeks)

Gingivitis Reduction - 4 weeks

Plaque Reduction (4 weeks)

Plaque Reduction - 4 weeks

Objective

To compare the Waterpik® Water Flosser to the Sonicare® Air Floss Pro (model HX8341) for the reduction of bleeding, gingivitis and plaque over a 4 week period.

Methodology

Sixty-nine subjects completed this 4 week, randomized, single blind, two group parallel clinical study. Subjects were assigned to one of two groups; Waterpik® Water Flosser plus a manual toothbrush; or Sonicare® Air Floss Pro plus a manual toothbrush. Subjects were instructed on the proper use of each based on manufacturer’s directions. Subjects brushed for two minutes each day and used their assigned interdental cleaning device once in the evening. Gingival health was evaluated by measuring for bleeding on probing and using the Modified Gingival Index. Plaque scores were recorded using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index.

Results

The Waterpik® Water Flosser was significantly more effective than the Sonicare® Air Floss Pro at reducing gingival bleeding for all areas measured. Notably, the Water Flosser was 54% more effective for reducing bleeding and 32% for reducing gingivitis compared to the Air Floss Pro at 4 weeks. The Water Flosser was also 28% more effective for reducing plaque compared to the Air Floss Pro.

Conclusion

The Waterpik®Water Flosser is significantly more effective than Sonicare® Air Floss Pro for improving gingival health.


Waterpik® Water Flosser: 80% More Effective than Sonicare® Air Floss (Model HX8181) for Reducing Gingivitis and Plaque

Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on the reduction of gingivitis.
Sharma NC, et al. Journal of Clinical Dentistry 2012; 23: 22-26.


Gingivitis Reduction

Gingivitis Reduction

Plaque Reduction

Plaque Reduction

Objective

To compare the Waterpik® Water Flosser to the Sonicare Air Floss (model HX8181) for the reduction of gingivitis and plaque biofilm over a 4 week period.

Methodology

Eighty-two subjects participated in this 4 week, randomized, single blind, clinical study. Subjects were assigned to one of two groups; Waterpik®Water Flosser plus a manual toothbrush; or Sonicare® Air Floss plus a manual toothbrush. Subjects were instructed on the proper use of the interdental cleaning devices based on manufacturer's directions. Instructions on the Bass method of tooth brushing were also provided. Gingivitis scores were recorded for whole mouth, facial, and lingual using the Modified Gingival Index. Plaque scores were recorded for whole mouth, facial, lingual, marginal, and approximal regions using the Rustogi Modified Navy Index.

Results

The Waterpik® Water Flosser was significantly more effective than Sonicare® Air Floss at reducing plaque and gingivitis for all areas measured after 4 weeks of use. The Water Flosser was 80% more effective than Air Floss for overall gingivitis reduction, and was 70% more effective for plaque reduction. Notably, the Water Flosser was twice as effective for plaque removal from lingual surfaces and more than 3 times as effective at the gingival margin vs. Air Floss.

Conclusion

The Waterpik® Water Flosser is significantly more effective than Sonicare® Air Floss (model HX8181) for reducing gingivitis and plaque.